If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Yeah, that reminds me. I had a bug where I was running C1 in DX10 mode (I can't remember, but can you? That seems right.) and the final boss kept crashing. The solution was to change a properties line in Steam do that it plays the game in DX9. You might strike lucky, but that is the solution if you encounter it. Otherwise, the boss is simply not beatable as it will crash.

Yeah, that reminds me. I had a bug where I was running C1 in DX10 mode (I can't remember, but can you? That seems right.) and the final boss kept crashing. The solution was to change a properties line in Steam do that it plays the game in DX9. You might strike lucky, but that is the solution if you encounter it. Otherwise, the boss is simply not beatable as it will crash.

ah. Thanks, that explains what happened the last time I played it. I was wondering if it was a driver issue or something.

"Overrated" is generally used to describe something which has been a higher rating than it's thought to deserve. So what if he meant it like that? I don't see anything inherently wrong with arguing that the critics got it wrong (not that there was much in the way of argument). To be frank, just because lots of people enjoyed something, it doesn't necessarily make it good.

I don't want to get too far into this, because this discussion goes round in circles whenever it shows up, and this certainly isn't the thread for it. A lot of it is personal. So I shall try to keep it short.

Games are a complex alchemical stew of input, and sensory data feedback. We are ludicrously complex alchemical stews of memory, experience, reflex, hormones and goodness knows what else. When we play a game our brains do something bizarre and inexplicable with all the inputs we're getting and produce a bunch of sensations which may or may not be positive. Whether or not they are depends on the hopelessly chaotic way the complex system of the game interacts with the complex system that is a human.

In brief, there's no guarantee that what it is enjoyable for me is enjoyable for you. As we see any time games are discussed, we all have very different responses to the same game. You might love Dishonored. Love it. Game of the year. You haven't had so much fun in ages. I might hate it and find every moment excruciatingly dull. Both of these are legitimate responses- they're honest reactions.

So then we approach the issue of criticism. When we go to sites like RPS, or read a discussion on a game on a forum like this we are often looking for the answer to the question "is this game good?" This is a substitute for something related- "should I buy this? Would I like it if I played it?" We've determined the latter question to be objectively unanswerable on an individual basis, but we can increase the odds of finding a game we enjoy by two means. Firstly, seeking out the opinions of as many people who have played the game as possible. Secondly, seeking out the opinion of specific people, or specific outlets, whose opinions we have found through experience match our own, or who are sufficiently skilled writers that we get a sense as to how we will feel playing the game from reading about their experiences. The critics' opinion helps you, the discerning gamer, avoid the pitfall of populist trash (which you mention in your last sentence), which a good critic will be able to help you avoid.

In this sense, a good game is one which fills two criteria: firstly, a lot of people enjoy playing it, and secondly, a large proportion of relevant, reputable critics enjoy playing it. Note that your personal opinion doesn't enter into it, except as a small part of the first criteria. You can play a 'good' game and hate it. You could play a bad game (i.e. one not many people like and not many critics like) and have it strike a chord with you. There's no value judgement there. It's just the way the make up of the game interacts with your unique character.

It's why I get annoyed when you get folk storming into a discussion of a 'good' game (as defined above) and saying it's bad, that it's badly designed, that the team that made it sucks, you know the drill. That's plain wrong- it's a good game you happen not to like. I (perhaps being oversensitive, because I'm annoyed) see the 'overrated' label as a manifestation of this. My impression of Mark of the Ninja is that the reaction to it from both gamers and critics has been very positive. Therefore it 'rates' highly. It doesn't do anything for the complex system that is DaftPunk. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with him- his not liking the game is perfectly valid. But it doesn't invalidate MotN being a good game.

For me, "overrated" implies a judgement that the people rating something are guilty of self-deception.

Not self-deception. Simple straightforward deception. The people they're deceiving are not themselves. An overrated game is overrated because of the collusion between publishers and reviewers to keep a high Metareview score in order to prop up sales.

The only self-deception that rears its ugly head is when consumers are then called upon to defend their purchases amidst the inevitable backlash.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Not self-deception. Simple straightforward deception. The people they're deceiving are not themselves. An overrated game is overrated because of the collusion between publishers and reviewers to keep a high Metareview score in order to prop up sales.

The only self-deception that rears its ugly head is when consumers are then called upon to defend their purchases amidst the inevitable backlash.

Oh, yes, there can be scurrilous deception too. But there is also the deception that occurs when people are attempting to live up to their self-image of the sorts of things they should like and dislike, too.

Oh, yes, there can be scurrilous deception too. But there is also the deception that occurs when people are attempting to live up to their self-image of the sorts of things they should like and dislike, too.

We're not all hipsters, defining ourselves by our consumer tastes.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Hipsters are the extreme case, obviously, but I think most people have at least a little friction between what they want to like and what they actually like. All you have to do is look at, for example, the disparity between self-recorded television watching behavior and directly recorded television watching behavior in Nielson households.

Hipsters are the extreme case, obviously, but I think most people have at least a little friction between what they want to like and what they actually like. All you have to do is look at, for example, the disparity between self-recorded television watching behavior and directly recorded television watching behavior in Nielson households.

That just sounds like a repackaging of public face versus private face.

Nobody wants to admit they'd prefer to spend their free time eating popcorn chicken and watching internet porn. But since "gamer" is already a scarlet letter, why then subdivide?

Last edited by Nalano; 05-12-2012 at 11:54 PM.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

It's more the opposite: some of our consumer tastes are determined by how we define ourselves. We all view the world through a cloud of bullshit assumptions.

If you're deceiving yourself, then you are tailoring your outward appearance to match a preconceived notion. As such, you are defining yourself by your consumer tastes. If you are not deceiving yourself, then your are not defining yourself by your consumer tastes, but rather allowing people to define you (rightly or wrongly) by same. Assuming they, of course, are that materialistic and shallow.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

If you're deceiving yourself, then you are tailoring your outward appearance to match a preconceived notion. As such, you are defining yourself by your consumer tastes. If you are not deceiving yourself, then your are not defining yourself by your consumer tastes, but rather allowing people to define you (rightly or wrongly) by same. Assuming they, of course, are that materialistic and shallow.

It's more that you're defining yourself by what you think your tastes ought to be rather than what they actually are. Then you pretend that you actually have those tastes, and if you keep pretending long enough you start actually believing it.

It's more that you're defining yourself by what you think your tastes ought to be rather than what they actually are. Then you pretend that you actually have those tastes, and if you keep pretending long enough you start actually believing it.

That's what I said. And there's a name for that: Hipster.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

Surely to be a Hipster they have to be slightly obscure opinions. I think you can be a "mainstream hipster" too. I mean, I'm your stereotypical hipster, whose self-image is "the guy who has different opinions from most people". But there are also presumably the people whose self-image is such that they think they enjoy all the mainstream popular culture stuff.

Surely to be a Hipster they have to be slightly obscure opinions. I think you can be a "mainstream hipster" too. I mean, I'm your stereotypical hipster, whose self-image is "the guy who has different opinions from most people". But there are also presumably the people whose self-image is such that they think they enjoy all the mainstream popular culture stuff.

Hipsters tailor their image to be countercultural, but they are not necessarily countercultural. They define themselves by their outward appearance, while publicly eschewing appearances. They are as materialistic as those they denigrate, except their materialism is consciously anti-mainstream.

There are people who like pop pap, but they may not necessarily be conscious of it. Hipsters are by definition conscious of their purchasing habits. Hence.

NalanoH. Wildmoon
Director of the Friends of Nalano PAC
Attorney at Lawl
"His lack of education is more than compensated for by his keenly developed moral bankruptcy." - Woody Allen

OK, I was talking about the unconscious side of things. I think everyone does some unconscious generating of opinions they don't really hold. By which I mean, if they thought hard and honestly about it they'd change their stated opinion.